ORDER : 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the first respondent removing him from service and the order dated 11.09.2017, the order of the Appellate Authority – second respondent affirming the order of removal. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that: The petitioner was appointed as a Waterman in Shettikere Gram Panchayant of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur district with effect from 02.04.1998 as a permanent employee. It transpires that the petitioner was also assigned the additional work of Bill Collector with effect from 5.2.2001. Owing to certain omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner, the first respondent invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short) had removed the petitioner from services on 18.06.2003. This was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate Authority in terms of the Act and the appellate Authority set aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner as it was one without complying with the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the order of the appellate authority, the services of the petitioner was restored on 30.11.2006. 3. Again, on 26.06.2014 the first respondent President of the Gram Panchayat issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for being unauthorisedly absent as also on certain alleged complaints given by residents of a particular village coming under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat. The petitioner gave a detailed reply on 05.07.2014 refuting all the allegations. 4. It is thereafter, the first respondent invoking its power under Section 113(3) of the said Act removed the petitioner from service pursuant to a meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 04.07.2014. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the order of removal which came to be dismissed without considering any of the grounds urged by the petitioner by his order dated 11.09.2017. Petitioner, though not available in law, filed a review petition before the reviewing authority who was the second respondent himself who was the Appellate Authority, only to be dismissed. It is the aforesaid orders that are challenged in this subject writ petition. 5. Heard Sri.Subramanya Bhat.M., learned counsel appearing for petitioner. Petitioner, though not available in law, filed a review petition before the reviewing authority who was the second respondent himself who was the Appellate Authority, only to be dismissed. It is the aforesaid orders that are challenged in this subject writ petition. 5. Heard Sri.Subramanya Bhat.M., learned counsel appearing for petitioner. The respondents, though served sixteen months ago have remained unrepresented even as on date. In the circumstances, the learned Additional Government Advocate did assist the Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner being the permanent employee of the Gram Panchayat and having rendered service for more than 16 years could not have been dismissed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing by conducting a departmental enquiry in the light of the fact that the order of removal is on the basis of misconduct of the petitioner which could entail dire consequences and cast a stigma upon the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate submits that in the light of the power available in terms of Section 113 of the said Act, no objections need be filed and has submitted on the merits of the matter. He would vehemently argue and contend that the power of the President of the Gram Panchayat to impose a penalty of reduction in rank, removal or dismissal of an employee without an enquiry is traceable to sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the said Act and hence, would contend that the order of removal being inconsonance with the provisions of the said Act no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 8. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record and in analysis thereof the point that arises for my consideration is: “Whether a permanent employee of the Panchayat can be removed on acts of misconduct without holding a departmental enquiry?” 9. The undisputed facts obtaining in the case on hand are that the petitioner was appointed as a Waterman with effect from 02.04.1998 and with a break-in-service with regard to earlier removal and reinstatement to service, the petitioner has been in continuous employment for 16 years prior to the impugned order of removal impugned herein of the year 2014. The petitioner is a permanent employee of the Gram Panchayat. 10. The petitioner is a permanent employee of the Gram Panchayat. 10. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice seeking to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for certain allegations namely, unauthroised absence from duties from 03.05.2014, alleged complaints against the petitioner from residents of Yogamadhava Nagar which came under the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, that the petitioner did not release water in the area deliberately and that he had quarreled with the Panchayat Development Officer. All the allegations noticed in the show cause notice cannot but be termed as a misconduct. 11. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the show cause notice refuting everyone of the allegations that were leveled against him in the show cause notice. Notwithstanding the detailed reply, the first respondent invoking powers under sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the said Act removed the petitioner from services. The order of removal reads as follows: The order of removal extracted hereinabove further amplifies the fact that his removal was on account of misconduct as the preamble to the order clearly narrates the allegations of instances of misconduct committed by the petitioner even submitting a reply to the show cause notice is made a misconduct. Thus, without a shadow of a doubt, the order of removal was on the basis of several acts of alleged misconduct which would cast a serious stigma on the career/service of the petitioner. 12. The order of removal is passed invoking Section 113(3) of the said Act, it is germane to consider the purport of the aforesaid Section and is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “113. Appointment and control of employees.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 111 and 112 the Grama Panchayat may, with the prior approval of the Chief Executive Officer appoint other employees of the Grama Panchayat and pay their salaries from the Grama Panchayat Fund: Provided that in making appointments the appointing authority shall reserve posts for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the same manner and to the same extent as is applicable for the recruitment to posts in the State Civil Services. (2) The [Panchayat Development Officer] may, by order, fine [x x x] or withhold, the increment of any employee appointed by the Grama Panchayat. (2) The [Panchayat Development Officer] may, by order, fine [x x x] or withhold, the increment of any employee appointed by the Grama Panchayat. (3) The Grama Panchayat may reduce in rank, remove or dismiss any employee appointed by it. (4) An appeal shall lie against an order passed by the [Panchayat Development Officer] under sub-section (2) to the Executive Officer and against an order passed by the Grama Panchayat under sub-section (3) to the Chief Executive Officer [xxx] (5) Any appeal under sub-section (4) pending before the Mandal Panchayat or the Zilla Parishad on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, shall stand transferred respectively to the Executive Officer and the Chief Executive Officer and such appeal shall be decided by them as if it had been filed before them.” 13. The afore-extracted provision of law, no doubt empowers the Gram Panchayat to reduce in rank, remove or dismiss any employee appointed by it. But this cannot clothe the Gram Panchayat with the power to remove a permanent employee on grounds of misconduct, without holding an enquiry and giving reasonable opportunity to defend himself as the allegations made would remain allegations until it is substantiated by a process known to law failing which, it would amount to removal of an employee on the basis of suspicion. 14. It is trite law that any amount of suspicion cannot take the place of proof and proof can be arrived at only if a procedure to arrive at is followed. Thus, conduct of a departmental enquiry in the wake of the allegations of misconduct is mandatory and cannot be obviated or circumvented in any manner. 15. Though the employee of a Gram Panchayat is not a civil servant in its true sense and would not get the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India nonetheless, a Gram Panchayat being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is bound by the rigors of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. Therefore, even if a provision bestows power upon the employer to remove an employee for misconduct under any statute without holding an enquiry, natural justice and reasonable opportunity of defence will have to be read into such statutes failing which, the very exercise of such power and the manner of its exercise becomes blatantly arbitrary. 16. Therefore, even if a provision bestows power upon the employer to remove an employee for misconduct under any statute without holding an enquiry, natural justice and reasonable opportunity of defence will have to be read into such statutes failing which, the very exercise of such power and the manner of its exercise becomes blatantly arbitrary. More so, when an action under the statute is likely to result in loss of livelihood or cast a stigma on such employee. If the aforesaid interpretation is not given to such statutes, it would be giving absolute, unbridled and unguided power to the employer to dismiss an employee which would not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. An instrumentality, agency or any other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India must act fairly, justly and reasonably as fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of principles of natural justice. It is apposite to quote the words of the Apex Court “reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution of India”. Therefore, any act of unreasonableness or unfair treatment will fall foul of the rigors of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, power being invoked in all cases by the Gram Panchayat against any permanent employee in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the said Act to reduce them in rank, remove them or dismiss them from service on grounds of misconduct shall be only after conduct of a regular departmental enquiry. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the first respondent Gram Panchayat removing the petitioner from service on grounds of misconduct without holding an enquiry invoking power under Sub-section (3) of Section 113 is arbitrary, highhanded and unsustainable, the orders impugned warrant appropriate interference. Therefore, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the first respondent Gram Panchayat removing the petitioner from service on grounds of misconduct without holding an enquiry invoking power under Sub-section (3) of Section 113 is arbitrary, highhanded and unsustainable, the orders impugned warrant appropriate interference. Therefore, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure ‘C’ and the orders dated 11.09.2017 and 22.05.2018 vide Annexures ‘E’ and ‘G’ passed by the second respondent are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner for alleged acts of misconduct, afford him a reasonable opportunity of defence and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. (iii) As a consequence of order in clause (ii), the petitioner shall be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.